linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190312112314.376d9c5f@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Tue, 12 Mar 2019 11:23:14 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     valdis.kletnieks@...edu
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c - fix comment format

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 05:08:30 -0400
valdis.kletnieks@...edu wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:58:32 -0400, "Valdis Klētnieks" said:
> > 
> >   CC      kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.o
> > kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c:41: warning: cannot understand function prototype: 'struct trace_kprobe '
> >
> > The real problem is that a comment looked like kerneldoc when it shouldn't be...  
> 
> After finding another case of this, it's debatable whether the *REAL* real
> problem is that gcc is buggy/incomplete and doesn't know that kerneldoc
> comments can be applied to structure definitions as well....
> 
> What's the consensus?  Should I go yell at the gcc people instead, or?

Nevermind, I mistook your patch as adding a kernel doc comment.

It's fine, I'll take it.

Thanks!

-- Steve